Ian Copeland Is Confused About the Biology of Sex

Despite Copeland’s call to ‘Bring the Facts,’ his own position was not grounded in facts but in authority.

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

Biology is under siege by activists attempting to undermine basic, long-standing, and universal principles of what constitutes a male and female. These are not merely academic debates; the view that emerges victorious from these debates will have pervasive and profound impacts on society. This includes issues such as the rights of women and girls to access female-only spaces like bathrooms, dressing rooms, rape shelters, and jails/prisons, and the integrity of female sports. It also affects the debate over so-called “gender-affirming care,” which seeks to alter the bodies of sex-nonconforming children so that their physical features align with their self-proclaimed “gender identity.”

Fortunately, science is firmly on the side of sex realists like myself. The setbacks we’ve experienced in recent years are not due to the weakness of our position, but rather stem from a climate of fear pervading academia, which silences dissent. Those who challenge the prevailing narrative of gender ideology—namely, that biological sex is a social construct or exists on a spectrum—are often targeted, harassed, and publicly branded as transphobic bigots. Proponents of this ideology understand that their biggest threat is open and honest debate. This is why, for the past five years, I have been dedicated to educating the public on this topic and openly engaging with gender ideologies whenever possible.

Last week, an opportunity to engage sex pseudoscience publicly presented itself. Ian Copeland, self-described as a “PhD Level Geneticist” despite having no peer-reviewed scientific publications, and a “Debunker of Nonsense,” announced he would host an X Space to defend the view that “sex is not binary.” This announcement came after Copeland posted various misleading statements about sex biology on X. For instance, he asserted that “Sex (like all traits) is not binary” and that “All traits are on a spectrum.” He seemed to think that a BBC Earth article discussing the sex-changing abilities of the Asian sheepshead wrasse (Semicossyphus reticulatus) supported his claims.

A day later, he stated that “sex is a genotype classification,” arguing that the existence of sex chromosome aneuploidies (atypical combinations of sex chromosomes other than XX and XY) proves the non-binary nature of biological sex.

The X Space, titled “Bring the Facts: Sex Is Not Binary, Sorry to Burst Your Bubble...,” was scheduled for January 19 at 3:45pm. I joined the Space the moment it opened to request a speaking slot, ensuring I was not far back in the queue. My promptness paid off; I was the first on stage and the first to address Copeland’s deep misunderstandings about the biology of sex.

Before the discussion kicked off, Copeland outlined strict rules for the Space: “If you say something that requires a source, you will be stopped and you will produce the source or you will not be allowed to speak.” I was concerned that this rule might be used to silence participants by demanding immediate sources for well-known scientific facts, which is often the case with descriptions of the sex binary. Just as contemporary scientific papers seldom state long-established truths such as “life evolved” or “gravity is real,” the fact that there are only two sexes is rarely reiterated. Fortunately, this debate requirement did not end up bogging down the conversation.

I began the debate by explaining the biological perspective on why “sex is binary,” and what this phrase signifies. In essence, “sex is binary” refers to there being only two sexes, defined by the type of gamete their primary sex organs have the function to produce. There are only two types of gametes—sperm and ova. Sex ambiguity (i.e., “intersex” conditions) does not constitute a third sex, as these conditions do not lead to the production of a third type of gamete.

Copeland did not dispute any of this. Yet, he insisted that so-called “genetic sex” is not binary, citing the existence of other sex chromosome compositions beyond XX (female) and XY (male), such as X0 (Turner syndrome), XXX (Triple X syndrome), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XYY (Jakobs syndrome), etc. He claimed that if an organism’s “genetic sex” is defined by their sex chromosome composition, then there must be more than two sexes.

This argument, while seemingly logical on its face, stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what sex is and what geneticists mean by “genetic sex.”

Put plainly, “genetic sex” is not a distinct type of sex at all; it is a convenient term or shorthand to denote that a person or cell contains the sex chromosomes that typically cause a [male/female] to develop. For a geneticist, knowing this about a cell culture might be useful if they are investigating sex differences or wish to control for cellular sex differences as a potential confound in an experiment. Additionally, medical professionals often describe sex in multifaceted terms because examining a person’s chromosomes, hormones, genitals, gonads, and their alignment aids in diagnosing potential issues along this biological chain. The use of terms like “genetic sex,” “hormonal sex,” and “genital sex,” is driven by practicality, not because they represent legitimate, separate types of sex.

“Genetic sex” is not an alternative type of sex. Sex only refers to the type of gamete an organism has the function to produce.

This becomes obvious when we look at other animals, such as turtles, that do not use chromosomes to guide their sex development. In the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the sex of their offspring is not determined by a genetic coin flip, but by the thermostat setting. Eggs incubated below 27.7°C develop into males, and eggs incubated above 31°C develop into females.

Discussing humans as “genetically male or female” is as illogical as referring to a turtle's “incubation temperature sex.” In experiments, it might be convenient to label incubators set below 28°C as “male” and those above 31°C as “female,” but there’s nothing inherently “male” or “female” about these temperatures. We may use terms like “male temperatures” for those under 28°C and “female temperatures” for those over 31°C as shorthand for “temperatures that typically lead to male or female development.” However, a turtle’s sex is ultimately defined by the gamete it produces, not the temperature of its early days in the egg. For instance, if a female turtle popped out of an incubator set below 28°C, we wouldn’t say she has a female “gametic sex” and a male “temperature sex.” She would simply be female, and the researchers would likely be intrigued to learn how she developed at a temperature typically associated with male development.

In a similar vein, the Blue Groper (Achoerodus viridis) is a fish species characterized by males that are blue and females that are brown. In the field, it may be useful for researchers to use color as a quick and accurate proxy when recording a fish’s sex. However, it would be incorrect to claim that Blue Gropers have a “color sex,” as there is nothing inherently “male” about being blue or “female” about being brown.

Chromosomes in humans and color in fish can serve as operational definitions of sex, but they are neither the essence of sex nor an alternative type of sex. The association of Y chromosomes with human males and the link between color and sex in Blue Gropers are known precisely because sex is a concept distinct from chromosomes or color. Sex simply refers to the type of gamete that and organism has the function to produce.

The philosopher of science Paul E. Griffiths makes the same point in a 2021 paper titled “What are biological sexes?”

Biologists know which chromosome pairs are ‘male’ or ‘female’ because they know which animals are male or female, using the gametic definition… The same problem defeats any attempt to define sex in terms of phenotypic characters… Something gets to be a ‘male’ or ‘female’ characteristic in a particular species because it is common in males or females in that species: sexual characteristics are defined by sexes, not the other way around. Like chromosomal definitions of sex, phenotypic definitions are not really ‘definitions’—they are operational criteria for sex determination underpinned by the gametic definition of sex and valid only for one species or group of species.

This is the fundamental point that Copeland fails to grasp. His concept of “genetic sex” is nonsensical, as it requires the primacy of the gametic definition of sex. Despite my efforts to guide him through this logical reasoning, he ultimately refused to acknowledge it. His only defense was that certain medical bodies use the term “genetic sex,” so it must be legitimate.

However, this is merely an argument from authority. My reference to Griffiths is not to counter Copeland’s sources with another authority. That’s not how science operates. Anyone can find a peer-reviewed scientific paper, or a PhD holder, to support their desired beliefs. Instead, I make arguments and cite sources that are rooted in evidence and make the most logical sense.

The prevalence of the term “genetic sex” among scientists, medical organizations, and in genetics textbooks does not inherently confer its validity as a type of sex on par with the gametic definition. Ultimately, only the strength of an argument matters.

Despite Copeland’s call to “Bring the Facts” and his frequent claims that I was being emotional while I calmly explained basic biology to him, his stance was not grounded in facts but in authority and his own emotional commitment to flawed ideas for ideological reasons.

---

Listen to the full X Space recording below:

Reality’s Last Stand is 100% reader-supported. If you enjoyed this article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below. Your support is greatly appreciated.